The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the Delhi High Court’s order directing the deletion of a Wikipedia page related to defamation proceedings initiated by the news agency Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia, ruling that the page was not prima facie contemptuous and did not amount to interference in the proceedings.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan reiterated the principle that “courts are open institutions to the public, and media reporting about judicial proceedings cannot be curbed lightly”— LiveLaw reported.
The bench held that courts, as public institutions, must remain accessible to the public, and issues, even those sub judice, can be openly debated by both the public and the press.
“It is not the duty of the Court to tell the media to delete this and take that down,” Justice Bhuyan read out from the judgment, adding that both “the judiciary and the media are the foundational pillars of democracy.”
“The court, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observation, debate, and criticism,” the bench stated. “In fact, courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism. Every important issue needs to be debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is the subject of proceedings before a court.”
However, the bench clarified, “those offering criticism should remember that judges cannot respond to such criticism. If a publication scandalises the court or judges and if a case of contempt is made out, certainly the court should take action. But it is not the duty of the court to tell the media to delete this, take that down.”
It further emphasised the importance of accountability, stating, “For the improvement of any system, and that includes the judiciary, introspection is key. That can only happen if there is a robust debate even on issues which are before the court.”
The takedown order for the entire page stemmed from ANI’s lawsuit, which alleged that the Wikimedia Foundation permitted Wikipedia users to describe the news agency as a “propaganda tool” for the current BJP government.
On July 9, 2024, the High Court issued a summons to Wikipedia and directed it to reveal the identities of three users who had edited ANI’s Wikipedia page.
However, Wikipedia opposed the order, opting instead to notify the users privately rather than publicly disclose their identities.
The legal dispute began in July, with ANI filing a defamation case against Wikipedia for its allegedly defamatory description of the news agency on Wikipedia.
Among the sections that aggrieve ANI are those which say that ANI “has been criticised for having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events”; that it has been accused of pursuing an “aggressive model” focusing on maximum revenue output while “easily dispensing journalists”; and that ANI “falsely blamed Muslims for the sexual assault and rape of two Kuki women.”
